

J-^ J 



IL 



E 

45& 



^lN 




APPEAL 



'OR THE CONSTITUTION. 




THEORY AND PRACTICE 



GOVERNMENT. 



BY DEMOCRAT 




J882 



B A L T I M R E : 

PRINTED BY W. M. INNES, 

ADAMS EXPRKSS BUILDING. 



1862. 



rr^3 





Class Jill? •*. 
Book 



■~&A± 






A.HST 



APPEAL 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION. 



THEORY AND PRACTICE 



GOVERNMENT. 



' 



BY DEMOCRATIC 




BALTIMORE: 

?RINTP]D BY W. M. INNES, 

ADAMS EXPRESS BUILDING. 
1862. 




51 

'V 



PREFACE 



A review of political events, if heretofore a privilege, 
has now become a duty which is devolved upon every 
American citizen. The eminent Fisher Ames, who, per- 
haps, more than any other person, suggested the terms 
and conditions of the Federal Union, speaking of American 
affairs, says: "The events have been so interesting and 
so rapid, that the public mind has been confounded bythe 
magnitude and oppressed by the variety of the reflections 
which result from them." This language is strictly 
applicable to the present condition of public affairs. He 
adds with equal force, that " experience which makes in- 
dividuals wise, sometimes makea public mad." Whether 
this sentiment has found its verification in the events of 
the day or not, it is clearly the duty of thinking men, to 
examine, with candor and fairness, the policy and measures 
of the government. Whatever differences of opinion there 
may be touching the propriety of its course, there can be 
none about the existence of great public evils. _ In the dis- 
cussion of the subject, all pre-conceived opinions, and all 
past political influences,, should be discarded. This is 
made the more necessary, because, in my judgment, the 
manifold difficulties, in which we are involved, spring, in 
a great degree, from purely partisan sources. Ignorance, 
ambition and selfishness, lay at the very foundation of all 
our troubles. They have not only occupied the entire 
political field, but have so polluted the very atmosphere of 
government, that men of high intellect and patriotism 
could not be induced to breathe it. This condition of 
things could hardly end in anything but evil, and that we 
now have in its most aggravated form. 

I am no partisan in the unhappy war which now devas- 
tates the country. My allegiance has been freely given, 
as I trust it ever will be given, to the government of the 
federal Constitution. It is not a blind devotion to a name, 
an emblem or a form. It is rendered to no administration, 



but to the principles of the Constitution. I know no indi- 
vidual in connection with the subject. In forming the 
government of the Union, we did not recognise the exist- 
ence at all, of individuals. We proscribed them in pro- 
scribing the Dynastic system of England. That was, in 
fact, all we effected by a separation from England. 

It may be proper, in these preliminary, but necessary 
suggestions, to show what we condemned in the British 
system, and what we approved by the act of revolution. 

We condemned the dynasty of George the III, and all 
other dynasties. The British people also condemned the 
Dynasty of the King who " ruled and reigned," and who 
assumed the right to exercise absolute powers. We con- 
demned his settled purpose to tax the colonies without the 
consent of the people: We condemned his interference 
with our local State governments. We condemned his 
effort to make the military independent of, and superior to, 
the civil power. We condemned the suppression of our 
judiciary, and the erection amongst us of tribunals un- 
known to our laws. We condemned the unauthorized 
creation of offences, and the conviction and imprisonment 
of the people upon them } in violation of their rights as 
subjects of the crown. We condemned the entire scheme 
of despotism which asserted the principle that the govern- 
ment could, in any contingency or peril, transcend the 
powers conferred upon it by the free system of English 
laws. 

Junius says to the King: "They (the people) con- 
sider you united to your servants against America ; and 
know how to distinguish yourself and a venal parliament 
on one side, from the real sentiments of the English peo- 
ple on the other." 

What we approved, on the other hand, was that very 
system of laws which the king had shamelessly violated in 
our persons and estates. We approved the Habeas Corpus 
Act. We approved the great doctrine of the inviolability 
of the citizens from arrest and imprisonment u without 
cause shown." We approved of the absolute freedom of 
speech and of the press, a right which every subject of the 
British Crown niighl exercise in defiance of all other than 
usurped and despotic power. We approved of trial by 
jury, and the supremacy, on all occasions, of the civil over 
the military power. We approved of the principles of 
representative, elective government, and of the subordi- 
nation of all public agents to the will of the people. We 



demanded integrity in the magistrate, and that ^should 
ever hold it to be his first dnty to obey the law he might 
be called upon to enforce. 

These things we condemned and approved. 
We established a new government and ordained by it 
that the Civil Power should be first . the military power 
second, and that both should be held in complete subordi- 
nation to the people. The latter constitutes at once the 
foundation and the superstructure of our system We 
have but one political estate. In England,, there are two 
the Dynasty and the people. We have citizens governed 
by laws of their own making. . 

In establishing the government of the Union, we neither 
discovered new principles, nor secured their application 
for the first time. We drew all our political maxims ti om 
the operations of the British system. _ 

What we undertook to do, was, to ordain a government 
so as to secure at all times, and under all circumstances, 
the ascendency of the popular will over delegated authority 
If there is anything in the recent practice of the adminis- 
tration which violates this fundamental principle, it is 
most clearly a usurpation. ;„;„„+>,« 

There was another object to be attained m organizing the 
present system: the maintenance of absolute State inde- 
pendence and sovereignty, excepting over the par cular 
interests delegated to the United States It is this prmei, 
pie of the organic system, which has been J^mitted to 
us, and finds expression now, in what is called State Eights 
I would not be understood as giving the least sanction 
to the pretended right of Secession, as claimed by the 
Southern States. It is a theory not only misch levons m 
itself, but absurd. The right to secede could not have been 
reserved without imparting to the Government an ephem- 
eral character, utterly at war with the policy of the nat on. 
All governments are supposed to be perpetual A nation 
gains position and commands res pect by virtue ot the 
evidence it is able to exhibit to the world of its ability ^to 
maintain the integrity of its organism. ^P^^T " * 
vital element of its character. There would be no force in 
a covenant reserving the right of Secession , for no mem- 
ber of the Union could ever avail itself of such a right 
except for gooi cause, and where the latter exists it could 
not be strengthened by any reservation in the bond. 



THE FIRST UNION. 



The commencement of the war in 1775 made it necessary, 
as a means of defence!, to combine or unite the colonies. 
This union culminated the following year in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, and in 1778, in the adoption of 
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union" under 
the style of " the United States of America." The second 
article of this compact expresses the leading thought and 
purpose of the day : 

"Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and inde- 
pendence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which 
is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the 
United States." 

The government, thus created, was radically deficient. 
It, however, possessed all the powers which the States 
were willing, at the time, to confer upon it. It continued 
three years after the close of the war, without eliciting, as 
far as I can find, a single proposition to enlarge its sphere, 
except the naked suggestion of conferring upon the Union 
exclusive jurisdiction over the commerce of the country. 
The first formal proposition of a larger grant came, in a 
back-handed sort of way, from New Jersey, in 1786; and, 
as the suggestion is an interesting historical fact, I will 
give it to the reader. That State appointed federal com- 
missioners to proceed to Annapolis to "consider how far 
an uniform system in their commercial regulations, and 
other important matters, might be necessary to the common 
interest and permanent harmony of the several States." 
It is thus seen how gradual was the abandonment of abso- 
lute State government, and how cautious the approach to 
(lie present Constitutional system. 

While a necessity existed for enlarging the powers of 
the government, it was the fixed purpose of the people 
that it should be done with as little infringement as pos- 



sible, upon the rights of the States. The absolute free- 
dom and independence of the latter, was a fundamental 
principle of all. Nor was this freedom, as many weak- 
minded persons argue, incompatible with the efficiency of 
the federal system. Precisely the opposite, is the judg- 
ment of reason and philosophy. The freedom and inde- 
pendence of the States, which are the sources of all au- 
thority, and the creators of the federal Constitution itself, 
are necessary conditions to a just maintenance of the integ- 
rity of that great compact. The latter is an out-birth of 
the former — an extension of the governments of the former. 
This is manifest on the slightest examination. Since the 
organization of civil society in this country, the States 
have maintained, without interruption, all the ordinary 
powers of political government. There has been no shadow 
of change in this particular. Before, during and subse- 
quent to the Kevolutionary War ; and pending the gov- 
ernment of the Confederation and of the Constitution, the 
States have continued to maintain absolute freedom and 
independence. 



THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOV- 
ERNMENT. 



The principal powers conferred upon the United States, 
by the Constitution, are embraced in the 8th Section, 1st 
Article, as follows: 

"The Congress shall have power — 

"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, 
to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and 
general welfare of the United States ; but all duties, im- 
posts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United 
States ; 

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States; 

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among 
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ; 

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and 
uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout 
the United States ; 

"To coin money and regulate the value thereof, and of 
foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; 

"To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the 
securities and current coin of the United States ; 

" To establish post offices and post-roads; 

" To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by 
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the 
exclusive right of their respective writings and discoveries; 

" To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; 

"To define and punish piracies committed on the high 
seas, and offences against the law of nations ; 

" To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, 
and make rules concerning captures on land and on water; 

" To raise and support Armies ; but no appropriation of 
money to that use shall be for a longer term than two 
years ; « 

" To provide and maintain a Navy ; 

" To make rules for the government < f the land and 
naval forces ; 

" To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the 
laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections and repel in- 
vasions ; 



9 

cc To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining 
the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be 
employed in the service of the United States ; reserving to 
the States respectively, the appointment of the officers and 
the authority of training the militia according to the dis- 
cipline prescribed by Congress ; 

" To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatso- 
ever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) 
as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance 
of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the 
United States, and to exercise like authority over all places 
purchased by the consent of the legislature in which the 
same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, 
dock-yards, and other needful buildings ; and 

11 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all 
other powers vested by this constitution in the Government 
of the United States or in any department thereof." 

This section embraces, as I have said, all the specific 
delegations of power to the United States. It defines the 
powers of Congress, and prescribes the precise limits within 
which they may be exercised. It constitutes, in fact, the 
G-overnme^f '• iwBJtelbl tile" >6«?afttf softer e of its action. Nor 
is it possible, under an honest administration, to misappre- 
hend or transcend its authority. The Government is an 
open record. Its length, breadth, and dimensions are 
measured with a sort of mathematical accuracy. 

There are but four delegations of power to it affecting 
the ordinary concerns of the people in time of peace. 1. 
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. 2. 
To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the 
States. 3. To establish post offices and post-roads. 4. To 
coin money and regulate the value thereof. It is thus seen 
to be very limited and partial, so limited as to be utterly 
insufficient to be more than a Government of sovereign 
States. It is but a superstructure resting upon solid polit- 
ical foundations. This is proven by recurring to the trusts 
confided to it and by every historical event attending its 
creation. It is shown in the meager array of powers con- 
ferred, and in the studied limitations and restrictions, by 
which they are, at every point, surrounded. It is shown 
in the condition of public sentiment at the time the Consti- 
tution was adopted, and in the bundle of additional re- 



10 

strictions so soon thereafter added to it. Amongst the 
latter are these two striking provisions : 

Art. IX. " The enumeration in the Constitution of cer- 
tain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage oth- 
ers retained by the people." 

Art. X. " The powers not delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively or to the people/' 

All authority was, it is seen, delegated to Congress. It 
established a legislative, not an executive Government. It 
conferred really no power whatever upon the President. 
His orifice is called a Department, but its legitimate author- 
ity, in peace and in war, extends no farther than to enforce 
the judgments of the Legislature. He is made Command- 
er-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia, when 
in actual service ; but this power is conferred upon him in 
order that he may the more effectually execute the laws of 
Congress. It gives him no power to originate measures, 
no original jurisdiction. 

What, then, is the Government of the United States ? 
Has it an existence independent of, and superior to, the States 
which created and uphold it ? Can the stream rise higher 
than its fountain? QiAiiW^rffas<j|J^^e4i^di^ ai ^'# t ? Is it not 
true that the creation of the Union contemplated, as a neces- 
sary part of our political system, that the States should re- 
main intact, and continue to be the source of all vital author- 
ity? I think so ; and, I venture the prediction, that although 
the tendency of the day is to clothe the Union with supreme 
powers, to magnify its office and sanctify all its acts, good 
and bad, legal and illegal, the time will soon come when 
the States will rise, in the majesty of their power, to assert 
their rights, maintain their independence, and punish the 
whole family of federal usurpers, who have sought to de- 
grade and ignore them. John Quincy Adams said of the 
Union in 1820, to Sir Stratford Canning : " The supreme 
unlimited power is considered as inherent in the whole 
body of the people, whilst its delegations are limited by 
the terms of the instruments sanctioned by them, under 
which the powers of Legislation, judgment and execution, 
are administered." The Constitution is a bundle of grants, 
checks and prohibitions, so interwoven as to array before 
the representative, at every point, the restraints upon, and 
the limits to, his official authority. It is impossible to ex- 
amine it without being struck with the conviction, that its 



11 

framers not only distrusted the patriotism and fidelity of 
those who might be intrusted with the public adminis- 
tration, but determined to so mark out their path, that a 
failure to pursue it, would, of itself, convict the delinquent 
of wilful infidelity to the Constitution. 

The United States have express and implied power to 
punish crimes committed against their authority, being 
restricted only in the trials thereof, to "the State where 
the said crimes shall have been committed." That of trea- 
son, the gravest of all offences, is expressly defined, and 
the Government is limited to the scope of this constitu- 
tional provision, viz : 

" Treason shall consist only in levying war against them, 
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and 
comfort." And, 

" Congress shall have power to declare the punishment 
of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corrup- 
tion of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the 
person attainted." 

Blackstone says : " By attainder, for treason or other 
felony, the blood of the person attainted is so corrupted as 
to be rendered no longer inheritable." The Constitution 
modifies this rule of law, confining the forfeiture to the 
lifetime of the person convicted, and the trial of persons 
charged, to the State where the oifence is committed. The 
reason for this seeming tenderness on the subject of trea- 
son, is found in the fact that we had but just emerged from 
a successful rebellion — just relieved ourselves from the 
responsibilities of the crime of treason in its most aggra- 
vated form. It is perfectly natural, therefore, that, in 
providing for its punishment, under our system, we should 
take away from it the severe penalties of the English law. 

I submit to the reader, without comment, the foregoing 
provisions of the Constitution, touching the powers of the 
Government over alleged political offences, including the 
questions of forfeitures or confiscations, with the simple 
request that he will recur to its practice during the last 
year and a half, with reference to persons charged with 
disloyalty to the Constitution. The most charitable con-* 
elusion, in which perhaps one ought to take refuge for a 
little time at least, is, that the heads of the Government, 
in the language of Silas Wright, constitute a part of that 
" large proportion of our statesmen who appear never to 
have read the Constitution of the United States." 



THE STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR 
POWERS. 



Having presented, in some detail, trie powers of the 
federal government, by way of contrast, and for the better 
understanding of the distinctive features of the two sys- 
tems, I shall now undertake an analysis of the State 
governments, embracing a short review of their principal 
rights and functions. 

I have treated the Union as a Confederacy, and not as 
" a consolidated or national system," as some of its early 
opponents called it. Its political anatomy, presented to 
the Virginia Convention, by Mr. Madison, may be inter- 
esting. He says: "It is of a mixed nature — it is, in a 
" manner, unprecedented ; we cannot find one example in 
1 ' the experience of the world. It stands by itself. In some 
" respects it is a government of a federal nature ; in others, 
:< it is of a consolidated nature." 

As a mere anatomy of the system, and very imperfect at 
that, this is, perhaps, technically correct. It is almost 
entirely federal in the election of President and Vice Presi- 
dent. These functionaries are chosen by electoral colleges 
of the several States. The machinery of the elections, the 
representatives, and the award of the colleges, appertain 
exclusively to the States. Some of the States refer the 
question of presidential choice to their local Legislatures ; 
and it is competent for all of them to do. 

The Senate of the United States is not only federal in 
the choice of its members, but is peculiarly so in its very 
structure and functions. It is composed of two Senators 
from each State. These persons represent the State. New 
York, with its four millions of inhabitants, and Rhode 
[sland, with considerably less than a tenl h of that number, 
appear in the Senate upon terns of absolute political 
equality. That body, too, is tl e highest branch of the 
Legislature. It divides the duties and responsibilities of 
the Executive Office. It exercises a supervisory control 



13 

over appointments. No treaty is valid without its ap- 
proval. The Senate is exclusively federal. 

The House of representatives, on the other hand, has 
many national features. Its members are chosen from 
specified districts, directly by the people. They hold their 
credentials from the people of their respective districts. 
The elections, however, are prescribed by the laws of the 
States ; all judges and officers of elections, are State offi- 
cers. The Congressional Districts are fixed by State legis- 
lation. Credentials even must receive, in many cases, the 
seal of the State. 

Now, let us examine the great mass of powers exercised 
by the States. The constitution calls them : " the powers 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." By 
whatever name they may be known, they embrace, as we 
know, the entire machinery of the State governments. 

They determine the relations of husband and wife, 
parent and child, guardian and ward ; they establish the 
conditions of marriage and divorce ; they regulate the 
tenures of estates and the estates of deceased persons ; they 
decide all controversies between citizens involving rights 
of property, personal rights and injuries ; they redress 
wrongs; they punish crime; they charter municipalities, 
institutions of charity, education, science and arts ; they 
incorporate banking, canal, road, manufacturing and other 
companies ; they maintain the poor ; they authorize and 
construct great works of internal improvement! ; they 
borrow money and pledge the public faith for its payment, 
giving; out bonds which have found credit throughout the 
world. 

These are some of the ordinary powers exercised by the 
State governments: the "reserved" powers to which I 
have referred. Now, what are the visible features of a 
system of political vitality like this ? They consist of an 
Executive, Legislature, and a Judiciary, of a complete, com- 
prehensive scheme of government, embracing the power 
of taxation ; the right to bear arms, and, by inexorable 
logic, the sovereign right to maintain its perfect integrity 
against all and every authority ; because it is original 
government here, the Union being an offspring or out- 
birth from it, created by authority delegated to it, which 
is expressly defined and limited to the enumerated trusts 
of the Constitution, none of which interfere witli the exer- 
cise, by the States, of the great mass of " reserved" pow- 
ers. The latter, in plain speech, constitute the foundation 



14 

which sustains the federal superstructure. If they are 
weakened or broken, so must the whole edifice suffer. Nor 
is it possible, without serious damage, if I may strain the 
figure, to enlarge the superstructure, at the expense of the 
foundation. The harmony and perfection of the system 
depend upon the maintenance of the perfect integrity of 
the parts. 

There is no other real element of consolidation in it, 
except what relates to foreign intercourse, commerce, cus- 
toms, gold and the post-office. The States work their 
accustomed machinery, outside of these exceptions, in the 
very spirit of independence. Else what means their elabo- 
rate and almost perfect governments? Why, otherwise, 
do they execute nineteen-twentieths of all the functions of 
the civil administration ? Have their magistrates no au- 
thority ? Are their decisions not obligatory ? Are their 
taxes a fraud ? Do the States give us counterfeit tenures 
to real property ? Are marriages void and children ille- 
gitimate ? Is the punishment of crimoifliiere mob violence ? 
Are executions for capital offences, murders ? Is the col- 
lection of debts a usurpation ? Is the maintenance of 
order, disorder and anarchy? Are all these federal, not 
State matters ? In the progress of centralization, and the 
expansion of the military power, are we to turn over all 
these " local interests " to a squad of federal post-masters, 
collectors, marshals, judges and attorneys? Are we so 
fallen i|i love with revolution, that we too, must put its 
wheels in motion ? The field is broad indeed ; and it is 
quite all occupied by the States. They authorize the 
doctor to prescribe ; the lawyer to plead ; the merchant to 
trade ; the minister to preach ; the broker to sell ; the 
mechanic to work ; the farmer to labor. The entire in- 
dustrial and social systems, of the American people, are 
based upon State institutions and laws. Slavery and anti- 
slavery are two distinctive social elements, abounding in 
different States, and respectively sustained by opposite 
opinions. The Union, nevertheless, has been maintained ; 
simply because its sphere of operations did admit of con- 
tact with the legitimate sphere of the States. 

Apprenticeship in New York, and slavery in Virginia, 
are institutions with which the federal government have 
no concern. The former State has adopted, to a certain 
extent, the common law of England ; while the latter has 
thought proper to rely upon its own judiciary to determine 
the applicability of English jurisprudence to her system of 



15 

polity. No one questions the right of the parties to pursue 
such course, on the subject, as their judgment should 
dictate. 

Do not the politicians of this country understand that 
the federal system cannot be enlarged without putting 
down the State systems ? That to sustain the former, by 
direct action of the people, is impossible in the present 
temper of the country ? The federal government, on its 
present scale of operations, would not stand a day without 
the direct support of a powerful Army. It is an Army 
government. It has stricken down the judiciary of the 
States. It has arrested individuals, and lodged them in 
the forts, without permitting authorized tribunals of the 
people to inquire into the causes of such arrests and deten- 
tions. It has deposed magistrates. It has dismissed 
Senators, and members of Congress, from the legislative 
Halls of the Union, for no other offence, than opposing, 
with manly firmness, the exercise, by the government, of 
unauthorized powers. 

These violations of the reserved rights of the States, it 
will be remembered, have been perpetrated in the very 
presence of a powerful army. Menace and wrong are 
stamped upon almost every arrest and imprisonment, every 
sacrifice of individual property, and every exercise of power 
by the government. A headlong tendency to overstep the 
bounds of constitutional law is visible in all its acts. The 
very safety of the nation may, perhaps, be found in the 
wantonness with which the rights of the people have been 
assailed and the personal liberty of the citizen sacrificed. 



EXECUTIVE OR CONGRESSIONAL EMAN- 
CIPATION. 



The President lias not left us in doubt as to the source 
of the authority under which he declares emancipation in 
the States ; " for " he says, " as Commander-in-Chief of 
the Army and Navy, in time of ivar, I have the right to 
take any measure which may best subdue the enemy." 
These words are sufficiently explicit upon the question of 
authority. The right to emancipate accrues by virtue of 
actual war between the United States and the Confederate 
States so called. By virtue of this war he has a right to 
proclaim emancipation. It is an Executive military right. 
Congress has nothing to do with the subject. It is the 
President, Commander-in-Chief alone, who is thus em- 
powered. It is a war power. The federal Constitution 
confers authority upon Congress to declare war ; but once 
declared, that is the end of Congressional and the begin- 
ing of Executive authority. 

But the President's Proclamation is based on the assump- 
tion that the States over which it is intended to act are 
still members of the federal Union. This fact goes very 
far to annihilate, at once, the rights which he claims " in 
time of war." We are not at war with the seceded States, 
but struggling to put down rebellion therein. It is not a 
time of war, but a time of rebellion. The rebels are in the 
Union, the constitution and laws of which they have vio- 
lated ; and we intend to put them down and then punish 
them for treason to the government of the Union. If they 
are not in the Union, but a public enemy, what means 
our confiscation act, and our test-oaths, administered all 
over the South where we can enforce them? If they are 
not in the Union, what means the President's Proclama- 
tion of the 22d September, in which he proposes certain 
punishment to all who shall not on a certain day, " be in 
good faith represented in the Congress of the United 
States?" If they are in the Union, on what principle 



17 

does the President find the country in a state of war by 
which he is endowed with authority " to take any measure 
to subdue the enemy?" 

The truth of all this is apparent on its face ; the Presi- 
dent agreed to execute the commands of the abolitionists ; 
and he seized upon the most plausible reason at hand for 
doing it. I think, however, he might have done better by 
announcing at once, that he had determined, if he could 
do so, to emancipate the slaves of the Southern people, on 
the ground that they were in universal rebellion against 
the Government, and the enemies, in fact, of the Northern 
States. There is, after all, a great amount of authority and 
right in any one to punish his enemies. An enemy is a 
sort of outlaw, as is proven by the brutal instruments and 
savage butcheries of war, which are everywhere recognised 
as civilized Aveapons, and very christian homicides. That 
we are at war with the South, to all intents and purposes, 
all admit. They are our enemies, and we are theirs. We 
wish to damage them, as they would damage us. If the 
President, then, had announced a purpose to emancipate 
their slaves simply on the ground that they are our ene- 
mies, there would have been a sort of charm at least in the 
proposition. But he chose to rest his act upon his right as 
President to do it ; and in that he inflicted a heavy blow, 
not upon the South, but upon the institutions of his own 
country. His emancipation paper has no other force than 
to discredit the integrity of the federal Government. This 
discredit results from an assumption of right to do an act 
under the Constitution, which is a palpable violation of 
that compact. It adds duplicity to guilt. It inaugurates 
a practice in the Executive Department which cannot fail, 
unless checked by popular remonstrance and protest, to 
destroy the Union. He has no rightful authority to eman- 
cipate slaves. His act is a naked usurpation. With what 
grace, or face, can the loyal States exact obedience to a Con- 
stitution, which they deliberately disregard or violate? 
Are we released from the law because others have violated 
it ? Does it strengthen our hands, as vindicators and cham- 
pions of the Constitution, to lay aside its obligations, 
transcend its authority, and violate its solemn covenants? 
Are the people of the South more guilty of disloyalty, by 
throwing off at once, all allegiance to the Government, 
than our own Chief Magistrate, who, with an army under 
his command, wilfully tramples under foot every restraint 
which the Constitution has imposed upon him ? 
2 



18 

There are legal parties to the Government of the Union 
—the States and the United States. The practical opera- 
tion of the system has evolved what may be termed the 
political common law of the nation — consisting of univer- 
sally recognised constructions of the powers of the federal 
Government. This law is the product of elaborate and 
profound discussion by the press, by statesmen, politi- 
cians, legislators, lawyers and judges. The establishment 
of a free government here was quickly followed by the 
establishment of a free press, which, if not always the 
most conservative, is the most vigilant, searching and 
powerful, of the institutions of modern times. It has 
been under the discussions and influence of this great 
engine of mind, that the political common law of the 
Union has been ordained. The powers of the President 
constitute a branch of this inquiry, of peculiar interest. 
No one has ever before conceived the notion that the Pres- 
ident was authorized to emancipate slaves. 

The President shall have power, the Constitution says, 
to grant reprieves and pardons ; by the advice of the 
Senate to make Treaties ; to nominate and appoint embas- 
sadors, ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the 
United States; to fill vacancies; and he is enjoined "to 
take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed." 

These are all the powers conferred upon him by the Con- 
stitution, excepting the conditional veto. The right to 
declare war is vested in Congress, and so is the kindred 
right " to make rules for the government of the land and 
naval forces." 

The subject of slavery, in its connection with the federal 
Government, is an interesting point of inquiiy, now that 
the President assumes the right of emancipation. When 
the Union was formed, slavery existed in nearly all the 
States. Slaves are counted, to a certain extent, as a basis 
of representation in Congress. This provision is general, 
extending to every State of the Union. In another part 
of the federal compact, it is agreed that fugitive slaves 
shall be surrendered to their masters. These covenants 
fix the status of slavery in the Government. It is a State 
institution, and, as such, is placed by the Constitution 
itself, beyond the control of the President and of Congress. 
It is so defined, in express terms, viz : 

"No person held to service or labor in one State under 
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence 
of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such 



service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 
person to whom such service or labor may be due." 

This is explicit and conclusive. It prohibits the States 
from emancipating even fugitives coming within their 
limits. What the States are forbidden to do, slavery 
being defined as a State interest, surely the President can- 
not do without express authority. In the face of these 
provisions of the Constitution, on what possible ground is 
it urged, that the President or Congress, or both, may, at 
will, emancipate slaves in the States? No authority, to 
that end, is vested in those departments. They are 
specially endowed with power to do certain things, just as 
the judiciary is ; but the right to emancipate slaves is not 
one of the grants. On the contrary, it is expressly cove- 
nanted as a fundamental principle of the Union, that three- 
fifths of all slaves held, or to be held, under State laws, 
shall be counted as a basis of federal representation in 
Congress ; and the authority of the federal Government is 
extended to slaveholders, to reclaim their fugitive slave 
property, when found in another State. What would be 
thought of an individual who should deny the right of 
property in his neighbor to certain things, which, by pre- 
vious agreement, he had undertaken to aid him to hold 
and enjoy? What would be said of the integrity and fair 
dealing of that neighbor, if, upon inquiry, the property 
in question, should be proven to have been, for a century, 
in the hands of its present possessor and his ancestors ? 

But it is a waste of ink and paper, I hear the reader 
say, to seriously discuss the authority of Congress, or the 
President, to act upon slavery in the States. The theory 
and practice of the Government is against it. . Policy and 
principle alike condemn it. Honesty and fair dealing 
reject it. The high interests of the State, and the higher 
interests of humanity, repudiate it 

There is, nevertheless, a party in the country who de- 
mand emancipation. That is their only object. They 
are indifferent to the means, or agencies, by which their 
cherished designs shall be accomplished. They hate the 
Federal Union, precisely as they cherish abolitionism. 
The existence of the former, in its integrity, is incompati- 
ble with the success of the latter ; the triumph of the one 
is the downfall of the other. 

So far in the history of the Union it has met but one 
formidable enemy. Its achievements cover a broader field, 
and more solid benefits to mankind, than has ever before 



20 

fallen to the lot of a nation. No human power can com- 
prehend the magnitude of the blessings which have flown 
from the federal Government; and no human power, in 
my judgment, can measure the sacrifices of its failure. If, 
however, it must fall, or what amounts to something 
worse, he held together by the force of arms, the true 
friends of the Union will know that the great disaster is 
due alone to the abolitionists. These criminal agitators 
have formed an opinion concerning slavery which has 
utterly corrupted their allegiance to the Union — an opin- 
ion obstinate and predominant, to enforce which, they 
have ever shown themselves ready to sacrifice the Consti- 
tution. 



MILITARY EMANCIPATION. 



What powers, if any, are conferred upon Congress, or 
the President, by conditions of War? 

It is important in this connection, to define and name 
the grand carnival of death now being enacted by the 
people of the North and of the South. 

The enormity of its crimes, in my judgment, are not re- 
lieved by a single valid excuse or justification. It is 
purely a war of human passions, stimulated into action by 
gross and unpardonable ignorance, suspicion, ambition, 
and fanaticism. Abolitionism on the one hand, and pro- 
slaveryism on the other, have drawn a nation of upright, 
industrious, and virtuous people, into the very court of sin, 
desolation and death. If a struggle so wicked should re- 
sult in degrading the national character only, it might, 
perhaps, be endured ; but the treading out of every prin- 
ciple of social and political morality- — the utter brutali- 
zation of the people, are to be, I fear, its only achieve- 
ments. 

The Government says, we are not engaged in war, but 
in suppressing a gigantic rebellion. It proposes, when 
we shall become masters of the insurgent country, to treat 
the people thereof as rebels. It maintains that they do 
not constitute a de facto government, which is the lowest 
estate capable of making war — that the government of the 
Union rightfully extends over every inch of its original 
territory. The utter obliteration of the rebels, on paper, 
is thus quite complete and satisfactory. As a matter of 
legal right too, this assumption is altogether correct. The 
Government has an undoubted option to conquer the re- 
bellion, or acknowledge and recognise the State for which 
it is fighting. We are not engaged in war ; it is a purely 
domestic quarrel, an affair of our own. Whatever powers 
the President and Congress possess, are peace powers, 
constitutional powers, delegated powers. But it is said, 
the President, in the event of war, as Commander-in- 



22 

Chief of the Army and Navy, is endowed with absolute 
authority, "to take any measure which may best subdue 
the enemy;" and that, as the present struggle involves 
all the incidents, and employs all the agencies of war, that 
his powers are now plenary. This assumption can hardly 
be said to raise a legal question ; it is, by its very state- 
ment, a military edict. Right is made to give way to 
might. There is not a word in the Constitution to author- 
ize the President to do what he proposes as " a measure 
to subdue the enemy." In announcing such a principle, 
he evidently saw more of the Army than of the Constitution, 
of force than of right. With the Army to enforce his 
decrees, he has power to do almost anything. He may 
dissolve marriage contracts ; release criminals from prison 
and put in their place sheriffs and magistrates ; he may 
declare offences unknown to the law ; he may emancipate 
slaves : all these things he may, unquestionably, do by 
virtue of the fact that he controls the Army. With large 
means and small scruples, I do not perceive where his 
authority ends. 

But no one will look to the Constitution for power thus 
to act. That compact is not, however, altogether silent 
on the subject. It defines his authority with perfect 
accuracy. It says, he shall execute the laws, not make 
them. 

Congress is empowered, as we have seen, " to declare 
war." 

It is hardly necessary, to say, that the exercise of this 
authority, though of vast importance to the people, opens 
to the President no new field of operations. He is simply 
intrusted with the duty of enforcing, not making the laws ; 
even the rules which govern the land and naval forces it 
is the duty of Congress "to make." These rules do not 
relate to revenue, to commerce, to the public lands, to 
civil government, in any sense, but to the discipline and 
management of the Army ; yet, the President is not per- 
mitted to exercise even this power. 

We are compelled, then, to look outside of the Constitu- 
tion for authority to emancipate slaves. It is found in the 
fact — so we are gravely told — that emancipation is neces- 
sary to weaken, paralyze and destroy " the public enemy." 
If we are at war with an independent State, there can be 
no doubt of the right of the Government to conquer a 
peace, by every means recognized amongst civilized na- 
tions. That is a plain proposition. War does not relieve 



us of responsibility to laws ; it simply removes, for the 
time, one code and substitutes another — the laws of the 
State, to a certain extent, give place to the laws of nations. 
Under these restrictions, when the question is, how far we 
may damage the public enemy, we need not look to the 
Constitution for authority to do this or that, but to the law 
of nations and the dictates of a common humanity, to see 
how far we may go, or rather what positive restraints are 
imposed upon us as a belligerent. 

In seeking to suppress the rebellion, for instance, we 
have been compelled, in some respects, to conform to the 
laws of war, though we have persistently maintained, all 
the while, that the struggle is purely domestic, with which 
other nations have no right to interfere. We have made 
these concessions on the score of humanity. Nor have they 
been made, I would believe, in the interest alone of the 
adherents to the federal Government. The laws of human- 
ity have fairly overridden the laws of the State. We can- 
not punish a rebel, even on the clearest evidence of his 
guilt. We cannot hold him in custody. We are com- 
pelled, by great public considerations, not only to release 
him, but to send him back to the new State to which he 
professes to owe allegiance. I speak of these manifest con- 
ditions of the struggle, in order to show, how completely 
the necessities of the hour control the action of the Gov- 
ernment, even in opposition to the local law. 

Is it now proposed to abandon this humane policy and 
adopt a rule of warfare which shall end in an " undistin- 
guished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions." 
Is such a measure compatible with the grand purposes of 
the nation ? Let us see. The South have four millions 
of slaves. We propose to emancipate them, not by legis- 
lation, not in time of peace, not even in the spirit of phi- 
lanthropy, but in time of war and by an act of war. It is 
not, then, freedom to the blacks, that we seek, but destruc- 
tion to the whites. We propose emancipation, because it 
is believed, that one of its immediate fruits will be, servile 
insurrection. The President, by his Proclamation, deli- 
cately intimates this by declaring that the military power 
" will do no act or acts, to suppress such persons, (slaves) 
or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their 
actual freedom." And then who are to be the victims? 
Not the men in arms, the actual offenders, for they can 
defend themselves. Who then ? The old, the lame, the 
halt, the blind, the sick, the defenceless — the women and 



24 

children of the insurgent States ! Is it urged that the 
principles of civilized warfare can justify a measure of 
such wanton barbarity ? Is it maintained that emancipa- 
tion, under the circumstances, can bear any other fruit? 

Of all the rules that govern mankind, those which 
relate to war, are the least definite and the most liable to 
violation. There are, nevertheless, certain fundamental 
principles of justice and humanity, which can not be set 
aside. It has been the constant effort of modern civiliza- 
tion to enlarge the sphere of these principles — to modify 
the evils of war ; to remove, especially as far as possible, 
its burdens and sacrifices from the masses of the people. 
It has been thought sufficient to satisfy the ends of justice, 
that Armies and Navies should settle questions of interna- 
tional quarrel and command terms of adjustment. These 
efforts betoken an advance of civilization. They are taken 
in the midst of peace, when the mind can calmly review the 
miseries of war, and is impelled, as it were, to surround it, 
when it comes, with such wholesome limitations and re- 
straints, as will shield from harm, if possible, those who 
contribute least to inaugurate it, and sacrifice most to effect 
its termination. Granting that we are at war with the 
most detestable and hated nation on the globe ; that we have 
been forced into it ; that we have been barbarously treated 
during its existence ; can we afford, nevertheless, to depart 
from that humane policy, and those just maxims of na- 
tional and international law, the violation of which con- 
stitute, after all, the chief ground of complaint against our 
public enemy ? The North was clearly in the right, at 
the commencement of this quarrel, and the South as clearly 
in the wrong; I would not, on any account, see the atti- 
tude of the parties reversed. But emancipation by the 
former, by act of war, will do this with a vengeance ! 

But is it clear that military emancipation is possible ? 
Have we gained such control over the insurgent States, as 
to enable us to vitalize the measures of the Government 
therein? If not, we shall acquire credit, throughout the 
world, for seeking to enforce a brutal and bloody edict 
upon the people of the South; and they will win the crown 
of martyrdom without suffering its sacrifices. Its failure 
will be a two-edged sword. It will build up, strengthen 
and fortify the South. It will weaken, demoralize and 
divide the North. In the judgment of tens of thousands 
of loyal men, the proposition stands now as a gigantic 
assault upon the Union spirit of the nation — an attempt 



25 

to degrade Unionism, by attributing to it the most shock- 
ing barbarities committed in utter contempt and violation 
of the Constitution of the United States. It cannot even 
be pleaded, that military emancipation proposes, as a first 
object, freedom to the blacks ; it is destruction to the 
whites. It is not a union — re-construction — a consti- 
tutional measure ; but a disunion, disintegration scheme — 
a sort of infernal massacre — a y;rand slaughter of women 
and children — a peerless national homicide ! It is to be 
enforced, too, as a measure of blood — the consummation of 
a long cherished purpose, by men, who have ever regarded 
the maintenance of the Union as incompatible with the 
ultimate triumph of their scheme. 

But let us suppose all objections on the score of humanity 
and of national and international law, to be removed — that 
emancipation is a legitimate act of war, on whom is the 
penalty to fall? Who are to bear the forfeiture? 

We say the rebel States are in the Union still. This 
pre-supposes the existence of loyal men — loyal slave-hold- 
ers of those States. Are they excepted by the terms of 
the Proclamation? No. Grant that they are in a power- 
less minority ; are they to be punished for not being in the 
majority? They are proscribed by the Confederates ; is it 
just that they should be sacrificed by the federal Govern- 
ment, whose authority they have maintained, and in whose 
cause they have been stricken down at home? Is their 
property to be taken from them because their neighbors 
have proven disloyal to the Union? Who gave the Presi- 
dent, or Congress, the right to take it? 

But it is answered, the people of the State — the majority 
of the State, are in rebellion against -the Union. Be it so. 
Then put down the rebellion and punish the rebels to the 
extent of your constitutional authority. Do not convict, 
at wholesale, by executive proclamation. Do not sacrifice 
alike the guilty and the innocent. Employ your tribu- 
nals of justice. It is their office to punish rebels. Ours 
is not a military government — unless, indeed, we have 
obliterated all distinction between right and power. If, 
however, the latter is the supreme law — if it has ignored 
the Constitution — if it first distrusted, and then blotted out, 
the judiciary — if we are, where we seem to be, outside the 
limits of constitutional government, and within the very 
grasp of ■ ab ' Q ' liti an.i i i . ft w a , let us, at least, comprehend our own 
great sacrifices, while we deplore and lament the errors 
and sins of the South. We have then lost the liberty and 



<zktfhj&K£> 



26 

independence of the people; have the South lost more? 
Well did Patrick Henry exclaim in the Virginia Conven- 
tion: "Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings, give 
us that precious jewel, and you may take everything 
else ! ' ' 

We have undertaken to force the South back to her 
allegiance. In doing this, is there not danger, that, by 
uur unconstitutional acts, we shall destroy the very prin- 
ciple upon which that allegiance can, by right, be ex- 
acted ? Is there not danger that the system we undertook 
to save may be swept away by the storm of human pas- 
sions which the effort has engendered — that the instru- 
ments we have employed may grow into such power as to 
overshadow and overwhelm the constitutional government 
which called them into being? Where now are the tribu- 
nals of justice whose office is to try and determine the guilt 
or innocence of parties charged with treason against the 
Union? Have we, any more, an independent judiciary — 
the very fountain of justice, in a free government — the 
trusted exponent of its laws and the shield of the citizen 
against the encroachments of military power? It is the 
judiciary which is the peculiar representative and organ 
of the civil administration. We charged the government 
of England with having made "the military independent 
of, and superior to, the civil power;" an offence in that day 
of the very first magnitude. 

The President is our civil Executive Magistrate, intrusted 
at the same time with the command-in-chief of the Army 
and Navy. He is supposed to be a civilian, and to lean to 
the side of the civil authorities. This, at least, is the 
theory of the system. Whether the framers of the govern- 
ment adopted the best course or not, to secure the ascend- 
ency of the civil over the military power, is another 
question. It is said, "a little knowledge is a dangerous 
thing." It is apparent, I think, that our present Execu- 
tive, in his conduct of the war, has not altogether dis- 
proved the truth of this maxim. We may consider the 
country fortunate if the evil extends no farther than to the 
mere mismanagement of our military campaigns. There 
is n dangerous allurement in wielding a great mili- 
tary power — a constant tendency to strengthen itself by 
its exercise. In such cases, too, the civil departments 
become, by a sort of comparison, &eb\$, t $nd inefficient, 
while the military head not only engrosses all attention, 
but almost imperceptibly dictates all measures. Armies 



27 

have never been noted for loving constitutional govern- 
ments, any more than constitutional governments have 
been noted for loving armies. The history of the world 
shows most clearly, that there is a well defined antagonism 
between these powers. General orders and proclamations 
constitute a species of short hand legislation. They make, 
at least, quick work, which is always sure to command the 
approval of the enthusiastic and the thoughtless. They 
reduce the machinery of government to a very narrow 
compass and find it necessary to confine the discussion of 
measures to an equally circumscribed limit. 

Are these reflections unjust, in view of the events of the 
last year and a half? Is it said that the Army is the 
agent of the people, doing their bidding and executing 
their will? Then, I ask, by what authority, under what 
law ? Has it been by the chart, and on a lawful voyage, 
that the ship has been navigated ? Are we still under 
the constitution of 1789, obeying its commands, heeding 
its limitations, guided by its spirit and protected by its 
solemn covenants? 



THE MORAL ASPECTS OF EMANCIPATION. 



The legal right, in this country, to emancipate slaves 
appertains exclusively to the States. The powers of the 
federal Government, over the subject, were wholly ex- 
hausted by the Act of April last, by which slavery in the 
District of Columbia was abolished. 

It has been maintained lately, by a few misguided men, 
that emancipation may be effected by what is called the 
War-power ; but, in truth, there is no such agency under 
our system, if we are to understand by it, that by virtue of 
war, the President is empowered to do what he has no 
right to do within the line of his delegated constitutional 
powers. His office is purely representative. His duties 
are all defined and his action restricted to exact limits. 
He is called upon to enforce existing laws. He has no 
creative political power whatever. He can make no law, 
civil or military. He is a magistrate to enforce, not a 
legislator to enact laws. The State systems, throughout 
the entire scope of their authority, are as absolutely 
beyond his jurisdiction as the British government; and in 
one sense, still farther removed, because the very office he 
holds was created and is maintained by them. His emanci- 
pation proclamation, in this view, is absolutely void ; and 
I think it fortunate, for the two races in this country, that 
it is so. 

The objections, which present themselves to me, to the 
exercise of unconstitutional powers, by the President, to 
free the slaves of the States, as serious as such a wound 
may be to our institutions, sink into positive insignifi- 
cance, when thrown into the balance against the mass of 
superior objections which crowd upon my mind, to inde- 
pendent emancipation, on any terms. The moral evils of 
such a measure, in other words, are infinitely greater than 
any political evils that can arise from the exercise of 
unauthorized powers by the President. 

The question is not alone whether slavery is right or 
wrong; whether the blacks arc, or not, entitled to their 
freedom. There is not an abstract feature in the whole 
problem. At every point of view the interests of both 
races are involved. I think it would go far to sacrifice 



29 

both, if enforced. If it would sacrifice either, it is per- 
fectly clear that there is no moral right anywhere, not 
even in the States, where all power over the subject exists, 
to enforce it. 

No scheme, involving emancipation, can, for a moment 
be entertained, which does not propose, as a cardinal prin- 
ciple, the completest preservation of the white race. They 
must be protected ; because they have won, by their indus- 
try, civilization and Christianity, the right of protection; 
they have won it by that order of nobility which God alone 
confers — that order which gives the superior dominion 
over the inferior — which is stamped upon the very fore- 
head of nature itself, and is at once irrepealable and 
indestructible. 

We meet, in this question, four millions of people, of 
an inferior race, who are held as slaves by something 
more than that number, of a superior order. This state- 
ment it quite enough to establish the justice of the desig- 
nation I have given the two parties. 

The proposition is not alone, in point of fact, to eman- 
cipate the subject party, but to make them co-equal inhab- 
itants with their present masters. Now, what I have to 
say is, that emancipation, on this basis, involves the inevi- 
table sequence of the destruction of the blacks. It assures, 
also, in my judgment, the demoralization of the whites. 

Emancipation and colonization, as twin measures, en- 
forced by competent authority, in time of peace, and in the 
spirit of genuine philanthropy, offer the only possible 
means by which slavery can be abolished with safety to 
the two interests. That they can not exist together as 
co-equal inhabitants, is proven by every lesson of history 
and every instinct and reason of humanity. Our own 
career as a nation affords us the most conclusive testimony 
upon this point. 

We originally encountered the Indian Tribes of America, 
embracing a population of more than three millions of 
persons. We met them, as far as laws are concerned, 
upon terms of perfect equality. We made treaties with 
them, purchased and paid for their lands; we recognized 
their nationalities. We used every means to civilize and 
win them to habits of industry. We sent christian mis- 
sionaries to them to inculcate the doctrines of peace, 
sobriety and good neighborhood. In all our intercourse we 
have sought to elevate them as a people, and to give them 
rank amongst the nations. We had inherited, too, a sort 
of reverence and respect for them, which, in spite of vex- 



30 

atious wars, pervaded all society and largely controlled our 
legislative action in their behalf. 

Beneath all this "labor of love" there has been going on 
an "irrepressible conflict" between the two opposing 
forces — a pervading antagonism and clashing of interests 
and natures, which no effort could control and no ingenuity 
avoid. 

And what has been the result? Have the two parties 
shown equal ability to cope with each other as contestants 
for empire and dominion? Have their wasting wars left 
them where they found them ? Has it been shown in the 
practical life of the two races — and this is the great ques- 
tion after all — that the mere fact that they were co-equals 
has served, in any manner, to maintain the integrity and 
power of the inferior party? 

The answer to these questions is found in the record, 
that the Indians have been reduced in numbers, to three 
hundred and fifty thousand, while the whites have in- 
creased, from a mere handful, to twenty-five millions. 
The former have been driven from the seaboard into the 
very center of the continent, where they now constitute a 
mere decaying remnant of humanity. 

In order to show how supreme and inexorable is the law, 
which governs the contact of two unequal races, made 
co-equal inhabitants of the same country, I shall now 
refer to the policy and practice of the Government towards 
the tribes, in reference to what has been called their "per- 
manent homes." 

Their nationalities had been uniformly acknowledged. 
They have been required, nevertheless, to leave their territo- 
ries east of the Mississippi and move to the country west of 
that great river, which had been set apart, by treaty stipula- 
tions, for their permanent occupation. They complained 
of this, and with a sort of prophetic vision foretold a near 
future resolution of the Government to eject them again 
from their homes and firesides. 

They were answered by reading to them the covenants 
of treaties — which they were made to understand ranked 
highest amongst our laws — by which they were guaran- 
teed the permanent occupation of the country west of the 
Mississippi. There is no doubt of the good intentions of 
the Government in all this. The theory was quite unob- 
jectionable. The very statement of the case is conclusive. 

The great interior, west of the Mississippi, was exactly 
suited to their wants, and to allay their fears, on the score 
of future eruptions, it was only necessary to show how 



31 

impossible it was for the whites, ever to occupy such 
distant and mnaccessible regions. 

I need hardly add that the Government has already 
broken every one of these solemn covenants, nor that the 
Indians have been ejected again and again from their new 
homes and reduced to a mere fugitive race. Meanwhile 
they have had all our sympathies and the best laws we 
could make in their behalf; but they have ever had against 
them, the laws which govern the contfact of two unequal 
races ; and it has been the operation of the latter that has 
destroyed them. They had the best field and all the rights 
of prior occupancy of the country. They were destroyed 
not on account of the hostility of the whites, but simply 
because they were an inferior race. 

Right on the opposite page, as it were, is written the 
history of another inferior race, which has been held by 
individuals as property. The latter have been cared for. 
protected, improved in capacity ; constantly increasing in 
numbers ; healthy, thrifty, industrious and happy. 

The antagonism between the negro and the white man 
is complete at every point ; the blacks being purely a 
servile people, who, up to this time, have never succeeded 
in any other capacity. They have, it would seem, just 
intelligence enough to make them useful when held in 
bondage, and not enough to assure their stability and 
happiness as an independent people. 

The emancipation of such a race would, in my judgment, 
be an act of monstrous inhumanity, even though the 
whites should retire from the country now occupied by 
both parties. The tide of invasion, of which we have seen 
so much in reference to the Indians, would at once set in 
upon them and sweep on to their utter extinction. 

If there is any ground for this conclusion, what is to be 
thought of emancipation, while the whites remain masters 
of the country? Will the latter submit to be governed 
by the former ? Somebody must have dominion ; it is 
hardly possible that any one believes that the two parties 
can work harmoniously together. 

Then, what is emancipation but a short process through 
which to effect the annihilation of the blacks? The legal 
right of the States to abolish slavery is conceded ; the 
moral right of the States to do so, unless accompanied by 
colonization, I deny. Emancipation and colonization, the 
two schemes reduced to one — become a measure of human- 
ity worthy of the support of philanthropists, statesmen 
and philosophers. 



THE HABEAS CORPUS— ITS ILLEGAL 

SUSPENSION, 
i 



i 



Before entering upon the discussion of the recent sus- 
pension, by the President, of the writ of Habeas Corpus, 
I think it proper to say a few words about the origin of 
this most important of all the principles of Constitutional 
Government. The direct office of the writ is to recover 
the freedom of a citizen, wrongfully taken away. The 
agency employed is the judicial authority of the State. 
Upon the faithful exercise of this duty, depends in a great 
degree, the liberty of every person in the commonwealth. 
The English judiciary has gained a wide and deservedly 
high reputation, more perhaps, on account of its rigid en- 
forcement of this law against the acts of the crown, than 
from all other causes. The importance of the matter is 
little understood in this country ; because, until recently, 
we have witnessed no direct interference with the liberty 
of the citizen by the Government ; and on no occasion has 
the privilege of the writ been suspended, until now. 

For a long period there prevailed in England a bitter 
controversy between the people and the king, the latter 
asserting the right, as an independent prerogative of the 
crown, to arrest and imprison his subjects at will. The 
immediate parties to this struggle, before the Great Char- 
ter was wrested from King John, were the Barons on the 
one hand, and the King on the other. It was only through 
subsequent events that the benefits of the compact were 
realized by the people. The personal liberty of the sub- 
ject had been asserted by the common law, from its earliest 
ages ; but it had also been continually assailed by the 
crown. At length it was declared in Magna Charta : 
'' that no man shall be taken or imprisoned, but by the 
lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." 
It is manifest that the assertion of this principle did noth- 
ing more than enact the common law. It raised up before 
the crown, the great fact that the freemen of England 



should be governed by laws and not by the arbitrary will 
of an executive magistrate. It was the maintenance of 
this principle that gave the great charter its name. That 
was the grand object of the compact. As usual in the 
progress of despotic power, the charter was broken no 
sooner than it was made ; and although again and again 
confirmed, it was as often practically violated, by with- 
holding its benefits, through the influence of the crown. 
The fires of liberty though thus partially smothered, were 
not extinguished. The enforcement of the law took from 
the King the principal lever by which he could reach 
and control his subjects. This he resolutely determined 
should not be. If the law itself must remain upon the 
books, the next step was to control the judges. Finding 
this more or less successful, in order to circumvent the 
king it was declared, in 1628, "that no freeman shall be 
imprisoned or detained without cause sJioivn, to which he 
may make answer according to law." 

The object of this enactment is apparent on its face ; it 
was to prohibit the arrest and imprisonment of persons 
without exhibiting the ground thereof. It announced a 
fundamental principle of the British government ; that 
arrests should be made only on open charges. This was 
simply a restriction upon the authorities. It went to the 
jurisdiction. It must be shown affirmatively how, and in 
what particular, the accused had violated the law. But 
even this explicit enactment did not secure immunity to 
the people from illegal imprisonment. At length, in 
1079, Lord Shaftsbury secured the passage of that won- 
derfully ingenious law, which we understand as the Habeas 
Corpus act. It has been copied in this country, almost 
word for word, never losing its popular features, but often 
enlarging them. 

The federal Constitution by fair inference, embodies the 
act in one of its provisions, and thus makes it a part of 
the organic law of the nation. It says : "The privilege of 
the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless 
when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety 
may require it." 

No one, who will look into the history of the act, will 
for a moment, admit the right of the President to suspend 
the privilege of its writ. Such an admission would defeat 
at once, the very ends of its enactment. It was wrested 
from the crown, in order to prevent the unjust exercise of 
power, directly upon the people. It substituted the agency 
3 



34 

of the judiciary in the punishment of crime, for that of 
the state and war departments, whose acts were arbitrary, 
oppressive and illegal. It denied to the latter the very 
privilege of arrest, except on the condition, that the 
grounds thereof should be distinctly stated ; extending to 
the accused, even then, the right of appeal to the judiciary 
to inquire into the legality of the whole proceeding. 
What is meant by the privilege of the writ is this right of 
appeal. To give the President authority to suspend it, 
would remove at once, every check which the great act 
imposes upon the exercise of Executive authority. 

The power of Congress over the subject is a very differ- 
ent matter. Whatever authority exists in the premises, 
is unquestionably vested in Congress. " The privilege of 
the writ," the Constitution says, may be suspended in 
certain cases ; that is, the office of the judiciary may be 
suspended. The Habeas Corpus act declares certain prin- 
ciples. It announces, for instance, as a fundamental rule, 
that no citizen shall be arrested and imprisoned, except on 
charges preferred in open court. The suspension of the 
privilege of the writ does not suspend the operation of 
this rule. Arrests made in violation of it, although the 
writ may have been suspended, ought to subject the persons 
making them, to punishment. This is a rule, too, of uni- 
versal application. It is directly endorsed in the 5th 
Article of the Amendments to the Constitution, where it is 
declared, that no person shall " be deprived of life, liberty 
or property, without due process oflaiv.' ' By the 4th Article 
of the Amendments, "the right of the people to be secure 
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against un- 
reasonable searches and seizures " is guaranteed ; and "no 
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by 
oatli or affirmation." The Gtli Article of the Amendments, 
declares that, "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused 
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an 
impartial jury of t\\a State and District," and be "informed 
of (lie nature and cause of the accusation. " 

These different Constitutional provisions constitute, in 
fact, the principles of the Habeas Corpus act. The latter 
can no more be suspended by the President or Congress, 
than the former. Both are perpetually binding upon the 
Government, never to be disregarded. What is the dif- 
ference between the declaration in the Eabeas Corpus act, 
that "no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained without 
cause shown," and that of the Constitution, which says, 



35 

"no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or pro- 
perty, without due process of law?''' The latter enlarges 
the sphere of popular rights by imposing additional restric- 
tions upon the authorities. The suspension of the privi- 
lege of the Writ, in the absence of the clauses quoted, 
from the 4th and 6th Articles of the Constitution, might 
seriously affect the liberty of the citizen ; but if no warrant 
is issued, and no arrests made, except upon probable cause. 
supported by affidavit; and in all criminal prosecutions, 
the accused may have a speedy and public trial by jury, 
the power of the Government, for evil, must remain practi- 
cally defeated. It is the violation of all these declarations 
of the organic law and of the provisions of the Habeas 
Corpus act; the arrest of persons, all over the country, 
without "due process of law," without "cause shown ;" 
the imprisonment of persons who are denied a "speedy and 
public trial by jury ;" unreasonable searches and seizures ; 
which are the source of anxious and well grounded alarm. 
The suspension of the privilege of the Writ, in point of 
fact, has been preceded and followed, by the practical 
annulment of every guarantee of personal rights contained 
in the Constitution and the Habeas Corpus Act. The 
right of the courts to interfere has not only been denied, 
but the law itself set aside. 

I now propose to examine the question of the right to 
suspend the Writ. Under the clause of the Constitution 
referred to, two conditions are required in order to give 
jurisdiction: — 1. That there shall be "rebellion" or "in- 
vasion." 2. The "public safety" must "require it." 
There can be no dispute about the meaning of these condi- 
tions. There must be rebellion or invasion, and necessity 
for suspending the Writ. Does rebellion in Michigan 
authorize the supension in thirty-two other loyal States? 
What was the sense of adding the words "when the public- 
safety may require it" if rebellion itself authorizes the 
suspension of the privilege of the Writ ? 

We must bear in mind, in discussing this question, that 
the Union is a confederated, and not a consolidated govern- 
ment. The States remain as independent political com- 
munities. These communities have a complete judiciary. 
Something is due to their dignity; something to their 
fidelity to the Union; something to their independence as 
sovereign States, and something to the liberty of their 
people. Was it the intention of the framers of the Con- 
stitution, in case of rebellion in Virginia, to hamper the 



36 

people of New York ? Was it thought that such an event 
would "require" the suspension of the privilege of the 
Writ of Habeas Corpus in the latter State ? Did the dis- 
loyalty of one State require its suspension in all the others? 
Was there no principle embodied in the provision ? Was 
it purely arbitrary ? Was it incorporated into the organic 
law for form sake only? If not, then, on what ground, 
and for what reason, should the Writ be suspended ? 

I can readily imagine a case of formidable rebellion in a 
State which would '''require" the exercise of this power, 
with respect to such State. So of " invasion." The pre- 
servation of law, menaced by either of these conditions, 
might require the absorption of the powers of government 
by the military head. Precisely this condition of things 
exists now. The suspension of the privileges of the Writ 
in Virginia, and other Southern States, is a duty, because 
the judicial authority of those States, as well as the Fede- 
ral authority, has been turned against the Union. There 
is no power there to enforce the law ; the public safety 
then clearly requires the suspension of the civil, and the 
erection of the military authority, that the law may be 
enforced. No such difficulty exists in New York ; the sus- 
pension of the privilege of the Writ is not required there, 
and hence Congress, in my judgment, has no right to sus- 
pend it there. 

That the right of suspension is special, and not general, 
is proven by the fact that rebellion in this country, by a 
kind of necessity, must result from State action. A lesser 
rebellion is not worthy of notice. When resistance to the 
Constitution and Laws of the Union assumes the organic 
form of State action, it carries with it, not only the judi- 
cial power of the State, but also of the General Govern- 
ment. Under such circumstances, in order that acting 
judicial functionaries may not have the apparent sanction 
of the United States to enable them the better to play into 
the hands of the insurgents, the suspension of the privi- 
lege of the Writ is authorized. It cannot be said, in 
answer to this view of the subject, that it would be a better 
course to remove at once all Federal officers; for, in the 
ijrst place, it would require a long time to test the fidelity 
of marshals and attorneys, and a much longer time to go 
through with impeachments, by which alone the judicial 
o llices can be vacated. 

Rebellion existed a lew years ago in Utah; did that 
authorize the suspension of the Writ in all the Stall's? 



In the present case, is the necessity for suspending judicial 
functions, in the loyal States, proven by the fact that those 
States have contributed a million of men and a thousand 
millions of dollars, to put down rebellion elsewhere? 

But suppose it is admitted, for the sake of argument, 
that the President had a right to suspend the privilege of 
the Writ, what are we to think of the policy of the 
measure in its application to the loyal States? Was it 
well timed, judicious and respectful ? Was it in harmony 
with the support they had yielded the Grovernment? Had 
they Avithheld their men and their money? Were they 
unable to maintain order and enforce the laws? Was 
their integrity suspected, their fidelity questioned, or their 
loyalty doubted ? Let us see. 

Whether wisely or not, certainly in the very spirit of 
patriotism, the loyal States, a year and a half ago, took 
up the infant Mr. Lincoln, in his very political swad- 
dlingjTand surrounded him with an army of volunteer 
defenders, such as the world had never before seen, and 
such, I apprehend, as the world will never again see. He 
was poor and helpless. He had neither men, money, nor 
material. He was as weak in council as he was abject and 
dependent. Having done for him every thing that could 
dignify his name, elevate his character, and build up his 
credit, they retired to pursue the peaceful avocations of life, 
leaving it to him to put down the rebellion and punish the 
rebels. It is not the business of this paper to show how 
signally he failed at every point, nor how liberal, indul- 
gent, and confiding, meanwhile, have been the people of 
the loyal States. That he failed in every thing, except in 
the extravagance of his life and the grandeur of his pre- 
tensions ; that he failed to execute the laws, because he 
was the first to violate them ; that he failed to command 
the confidence of the people, because he would keep faith 
with nobody but the Abolitionists ; that he succeeded only 
in transcending his constitutional authority ; that he suc- 
ceeded in violating all his promises and pledges ; that he 
succeeded in sacrificing the confidence of the country, and 
by his tergiversations, shifts, and boggles, rendered abor- 
tive every effort made to strengthen his Government, are, 
unfortunately, historical facts. 

Was it wise in Mr. Lincoln, under such circumstances, 
to travel out of his sphere, to insult and hamper the very 
States which had defended and sustained him ? Was it 
just to question their fidelity to the Constitution, in tin; 



38 

face of his solemn assurance to the whole world, through 
his first Minister, on the 22d of April, 1861, that: " The 
condition of slavery in the several States will remain just 
the same, whether it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails. The 
rights of the States, and the condition of every human 
being in them, will remain subject to exactly the same 
laws and forms of administration, whether the revolution 
shall succeed, or whether it shall fail. Their constitu- 
tions and laws, customs, habits, and institutions, in either 
case, will remain the same ;" and his recent emancipation 
proclamation, by which he proposes, at a single blow, to 
annul those "constitutions and laws," to obliterate those 
" customs, habits, and institutions," and destroy the lives 
and property of the people ? 

The great question presented is one involving the loyalty 
of the citizen, and the officer, to the Constitution of the 
United States. Arrests have been made, all over the coun- 
try, on the alleged ground of disloyalty. The President, 
meanwhile, sets an example of infidelity and treachery to 
that great compact, so monstrous and palpable, that the 
most earnest sympathizer with rebellion recoils with alarm 
and horror. He not only forfeits his most solemn pledges, 
made to the whole country and the world, but he assumes 
to exercise powers, in direct violation of that Constitution 
which he had sworn to protect and defend. He has exacted 
allegiance, not. to the Union, but to his administration. 
He has, by example and instruction, sought to release the 
Army from obligations to the Constitution, and force it to 
execute his unauthorized and revolutionary behests. He 
has endeavored to intimidate the people by arrests and 
imprisonments, against remonstrance to his course; he has 
put a censor over the press ; he has silenced the judiciary ; 
he has expelled legislators from their seats ; he has 
deposed magistrates ; lie has inaugurated and put in oper- 
ation a grand central despotism, whose law is supreme, 
and to whose decisions he exacts absolute submission. 

Another practice, upon a kindred subject — that of pre- 
scribing test oaths and oaths of allegiance — is a most repul- 
sive feature of the administration. It sets up a claim to 
imperial control over the people. It destroys, at a blow, 
I lie representative character of the Government. It decrees 
the existence of a full grown dynasty more anxious to ex- 
hibit its power than to execute justice. It proclaims a 
standard of allegiance to the American people, plainly im- 
plying that their patriotism is deficient, their institutions 



39 

defective, ami their loyalty doubtful. It is not enough 
that the citizen shall obey the laws ; he must accuse him- 
self of infidelity, by swearing that he will not prove a 
traitor to his honor and to his country ; and he must, in 
addition to this act of self-abasement, pledge his estate to 
the Government. This is what the inventive genius of a 
democratic administration have devised as a bond of Union 
between the citizen and the Government. 

The practice of nations, prompted by wise and humane 
reasons, has uniformly permitted a citizen to give in his 
allegiance to any de facto government, which, for the time 
being, exercises control over the State or district where he 
resides. The reason for this rule must be obvious to the 
meanest intellect. Non-combatants are never regarded or 
treated as enemies, nor are they held responsible for acts 
of government. While the question of dominion is being 
tried by hostile armies, they are not only held as innocent 
parties, but efforts are made to win them to the cause of 
the dominant force. Hence, upon the high seas, in neutral 
ships, none but military and naval officers are treated as 
contraband of war. 

Non-combatants stand, in many respects, in the position 
of neutrals. They have a right to conciliate the dominant 
military power, by rendering to it, for the day, their alle- 
giance, without giving just ground of offence to the State 
of which they are citizens. They are not parties to the 
war until they enlist or are forced into the service of one of 
the belligerents, in which case they become subject to the 
laws of war, or if it be a rebellion, to the laws of the State 
against which the act of treason is committed. 

The administration have not thought proper to adopt 
these just principles, but, impressed apparently with the 
idea that allegiance is altogether a matter of force, they 
have exerted the power they possess to compel the people 
not only of the rebel, but of the loyal States, to swear that 
they will be faithful to the Government of the Union. 
This practice, if enforced by both Governments over dis- 
tricts occupied alternately by each, cannot fail to lower 
the standard of morality, by making such solemn appeals 
to Almighty God little better than a shallow trick or 
deception. 

The practical operation of such a system, too, is most 
offensive. While the soldier, taken in arms againsl his 
Government, cannot be punished, or his allegiance in any 
manner exacted, the non-combatant is held to the strictest 



40 

obedience to the orders of all local military commanders. 
There is a sort of blustering pretension in the working of 
the rule, in this way, which is most repulsive to a generous 
nature. It is enforced with remorseless severity upon the 
defenceless, while it is relaxed or wholly abandoned in the 
presence of actual offenders with arms in their hands. 
The humanity of the Government is quite all dispensed 
upom the army of the enemy, while non-combatants, on 
the bare suspicion of entertaining unfriendly sentiments 
towards the Administration, are treated with all the rigors 
of an inflamed conqueror. The rule seems to have been 
settled upon the principle of doing the greatest amount of 
harm to those who have no means of defence, and the 
smallest chance to avenge the wrong. It never seems to 
have occurred to the administration that allegiance is a 
voluntary principle in this country ; that oaths can have 
no other effect upon individuals than to degrade the party 
which exacts them, and, perhaps, demoralize those who 
take them. 

Although we have a full record of unlawful arrests and 
imprisonments, the presumption is, that they are the work 
of minor officers, who are more zealous in the cause of the 
Union, than wise in comprehending its Constitution and 
laws. It is not, for a moment, to be supposed, that the 
President of the United States will entertain mere petty 
resentments, or seek, without just cause and authority, to 
interfere with the liberty of the citizen. His position is 
that of a father at the head of the ' household ; and his 
policy is one of conciliation towards, and care for, the 
welfare and happiness of all the inmates. They enjoy the 
honors and advantages of a common paternity, and are 
entitled to the benefits of a common inheritance. If they 
have offended against the just authority of the house, it is 
the duty of the President to expostulate with them, and, 
after a full review of alleged grievances, to correct what 
has been wrong in the past ; and then to enforce, with res- 
olute determination, what is right in the future. Violent 
measures, in a popular government, should never be 
adopted until every other means of accommodation have 
failed. Arbitrary imprisonments, lest oaths, and oaths of 
allegiance, imposed upon those who cannot resist them, or 
forced allegiance in any form, only widen the gulf between 
the contestants, and embitter the recollection of previous 
quarrels. The President of the United States is a high 
officer of State. However much others may exhibit a want 



41 

of charity, forbearance, and practical sense, in the present 
crisis, it would seem impossible that he should either be- 
come a partisan, or lend them his countenance or sympa- 
thy. If he would win more than the applause of passion 
and the endorsement of fanaticism, his measures must bear 
the stamp of conciliation, justice, and humanity. He must 
represent the people. What is meant by this is, that he 
shall faithfully execute every trust vested in him by the 
Constitution, and resolutely refuse to transcend the author- 
ity of that compact. If, in the measures to which I have 
referred, he has assumed to exercise powers not confided to 
him, he^ has only to retrace his steps. The judgment of 
the nation is full of charity and magnanimity. It will 
punish those who persist in error and wrong, no matter on 
which side of the lines they may be. It has sagacity 
enough to see what is right, and firmness enough to en- 
force it. 



WILL THE PRESIDENT RECEDE? 



By the theory of the Government all power is inherent 
in the people. This does not, however, contemplate the 
immediate action of the people upon public measures. 
Such action, by virtue of the powers delegated, is confined 
to representatives or agents, including the President. 
There is, then, under this fair statement of the case, at 
least a supposed connection and concurrence between the 
agent and his principal, and a disposition on the part of 
the former justly to represent the opinions and wishes of 
the latter. That the one or the other can be quite perfect, 
is not proven by experience ; and hence a large measure of 
charity is required by either party. The administration 
of Mr. Lincoln has undeniabh r encountered the most se- 
rious and alarming events. They have, too, fallen sud- 
denly upon the country. In adopting measures to meet 
them, the wonder, perhaps, is, that his policy has not been 
more universally condemned. As the Executive Magis- 
trate, he has enjoyed largely the confidence of the country. 
He has been credited with good intentions, and with hu- 
mane, kindly instincts. It has been almost universally 
believed that he sincerely desired to represent the opinions 
and wishes of the people. This conviction has added 
largely to his popularity, and to the strength of his ad- 
ministration. The public have been convinced, that, with- 
out dishonor to his firmness, he would be ready, at any 
moment, to retract an opinion too hastily adopted, when 
he could be made to feel that it was opposed and rejected 
by his constituents. The moral firmness required to do 
this is equally rare and attractive in a high officer of state. 
The tendencies of power are, unquestionably, very much 
against it. They lead the agent, invested with absolute 
trusts, not only to a reliance upon himself, but impercepti- 
bly, as it were, to regard the cause as his oivn. The very 
habit of independent action, in this way, unless controlled 
by high intellect and a clear perception of the nature of 



the office administered, tends to confirm the incumbent in 
the exercise of absolute powers. 

From this position, the road is a short one to that politi- 
cal dispensary which gives all the good reasons whv the 
public interests demand and justify the course pursued. 
In the present instance, the magnitude of the rebellion, 
and the labors of war, offensive and defensive, call, it is 
said, for the exercise of any and all power at the mere 
option of the President. It is argued that constitutional 
restraints and prohibitions, in such a crisis, are so many 
brakes upon the car of state, the control of which are in the 
hands of the enemy. This may seem plausible, and it may 
be, to some extent, truthful ; but it is nevertheless revo- 
lutionary and indefensible. The President's office is con- 
fined to the enforcement of the laws. The principles of 
the Government which he administers, its practice and its 
welfare, all combine to instruct him to limit the range of 
his duties to the executive office, to which he was legally 
elected; and they are equally explicit in telling him that 
he is responsible to the people— that he is, in fact, admin- 
istering their, not his, Government. 

There are always seasons appropriated by nature for 
calm, deliberate reflection. The wildest passions subside 
for this purpose ; the keenest anger, the most unbridled 
ambition, alike claim the benefit of this beneficent "re- 
treat." 

The administration of Mr. Lincoln, as it had a right to 
do, has proposed certain great measures of policy to meet 
and subdue the Eebellion : That of Emancipation ; that of 
Confiscation ; and that of the arrest and imprisonment of 
citizens, without the sauction, and in violation of existing 
laws, are the most prominent. These measures have been 
widely discussed by the people of the loyal States, and the 
recent elections show, conclusively, that they are not ap- 
proved. If this were the only objection to their further 
enforcement, the evil might be endured ; but they have 
caused the people of the North to be seriously divided in 
opinions on the subject of the war, and have thus impaired 
the power of the loyal States to contend with the rebellion. 
They have weakened, if not paralyzed, the public faith in 
the integrity of the Union. They have shown that it is 
possible, even with a million of men in the field in defence 
of the Constitution, that that great compact may, never- 
theless, be over-ridden or disregarded, by its own chosen 
guardians. They have shown that the people themselves 



44 

can alone be intrusted to originate and enforce public mea- 
sures. They have shown the wisdom and far-seeing saga- 
city of the framers of the Government, who habitually 
distrusted, and sought by every means to limit, the exer- 
cise of power by the Federal Government. 

With these evidences of the errors of the administration, 
and of popular disapproval, is the President endowed with 
sufficient firmness and patriotism to retrace his steps, and 
put us back to where he found us, a free people, ever ready 
to vindicate the laws of the Union, whether violated by 
friend or foe? Ours is a Government of laws, so consti- 
tuted, when properly administered, as to be incapable of 
overthrow. It rests upon the will of the people. Its 
foundations are as broad as its territory. _ Infidelity to such 
a system is rebellion against humanity itself. Its authors, 
aiders, and abettors are outlaws. The magnitude of the 
crime should make us careful, however, to distinguish and 
mark the parties who are really guilty — the rebel who 
plots and combines, and the rebel who executes. The 
Abolitionists, for more than twenty-five years, have been 
sowing the seeds of disloyalty to the Government of the 
Union. They have polluted and demoralized the national 
faith . They have made rebellion the very law of our being. 
They have destroyed the oneness of our people, by array- 
ing section against section, morals against morals, religion 
against religion. Not satisfied with these results, they 
now seek the utter overthrow of the Constitution, and the 
consequent destruction of all the great interests of society. 
They constitute a miserable minority, with power only for 
mischief. In success or defeat, they stand in the way of 
all rational measures, and blight every honest hope of 
future peace and union. With these forces on the side of 
the North, and open rebellion in the South, the chances of 
a harmonious adjustment of political differences seem small 
indeed. There is, however, just one remedy left to the 
people of the North— and but one— and that is, to regard 
and treat Abolitionism as the first and greatest offender, 
and Secessionism as its natural ally. The destruction of 
the former will take away the energies and power of the 
latter. 



41 

of charity, forbearance, and practical sense, in the present 
crisis, it would seem impossible that he should either be- 
come a partisan, or lend them his countenance or sympa- 
thy. If he would win more than the applause of passion 
and the endorsement of fanaticism, his measures must bear 
the stamp of conciliation, justice, and humanity. He must 
represent the people. What is meant by this is, that he 
shall faithfully execute every trust vested in him by the 
Constitution, and resolutely refuse to transcend the author- 
ity of that compact. If, in the measures to which I have 
referred, he has assumed to exercise powers not confided to 
him, he has only to retrace his steps. The judgment of 
the nation is full of charity and magnanimity. It will 
punish those who persist in error and wrong, no matter on 
which side of the lines they may be. It has sagacity 
enough to see what is right, and firmness enough to en- 
force it. 



WILL THE PRESIDENT RECEDE? 



By the theory of the Government all power is inherent 
in the people. This does not, however, contemplate the 
immediate action of the people upon public measures. 
Such action, by virtue of the powers delegated, is confined 
to representatives or agents, including the President. 
There is, then, under this fair statement of the case, at 
least a supposed connection and concurrence between the 
agent and his principal, and a disposition on the part of 
the former justly to represent the opinions and wishes of 
the latter. That the one or the other can be quite perfect, 
is not proven by experience ; and hence a large measure of 
charity is required by either party. The administration 
of Mr. Lincoln has undeniably encountered the most se- 
rious and alarming events. They have, too, fallen sud- 
denly upon the country. In adopting measures to meet 
them, the wonder, perhaps, is, that his policy has not been 
more universally condemned. As the Executive Magis- 
trate, he has enjoyed largely the confidence of the country. 
He has been credited with good intentions, and with hu- 
mane, kindly instincts. It has been almost universally 
believed that he sincerely desired to represent the opinions 
and wishes of the people. This conviction has added 
largely to his popularity, and to the strength of his ad- 
ministration. The public have been convinced, that, with- 
out dishonor to his firmness, he would be ready, at any 
moment, to retract an opinion too hastily adopted, when 
he could be made to feel that it was opposed and rejected 
by his constituents. The moral firmness required to do 
this is equally rare and attractive in a high officer of state. 
The tendencies of power are, unquestionably, very much 
against it. They lead the agent, invested with absolute 
trusts, not only to a reliance upon himself, but impercepti- 
bly, as it were, to regard the cause as his oivn. The very 
habit of independent action, in this way, unless controlled 
by high intellect and a clear perception of the nature of 



43 



the office administered, tends to confirm the incumbent in 
the exercise of absolute powers. 

From this position, the road is a short one to that politi- 
cal dispensary which gives all the good reasons why the 
public interests demand and justify the course pursued, 
in the present instance, the magnitude of the rebellion, 
and the labors of war, offensive and defensive, call, it is 
said, for the exercise of any and all power at the mere 
option of the President. It is argued that constitutional 
restraints and prohibitions, in such a crisis, are so many 
brakes upon the car of state, the control of which are in the 
liands of the enemy. This may seem plausible, and it may 
be to some extent, truthful; but it is nevertheless revo- 
lutionary and indefensible. The President's office is con- 
fined to the enforcement of the laws. The principles of 
the Government which he administers, its practice and its 
welfare, all combine to instruct him to limit the range of 
His duties to the executive office, to which he was legally 
elected; and they are equally explicit in telling him that 
he is responsible to the people-that he is, in fact, admin- 
istering their, not his, Government. 

There are always seasons appropriated bv nature for 
calni, deliberate reflection. The wildest passions subside 
Jr- 1S P l "'P ose i tlie keenest anger, the most unbridled 
ambition, alike claim the benefit of this beneficent "re- 
treat. 

The administration of Mr. Lincoln, as it had a right to 
do has proposed certain great measures of policy to meet 
and subdue the Rebellion: That of Emancipation ; that of 
Confiscation ; and that of the arrest and imprisonment of 
citizens, without the sanction, and in violation of existing 
laws are the most prominent. These measures have bee? 
widely discussed by the people of the loyal States, and the 
recent elections show, conclusively, that they are not ap- 
proved. If this were the only objection to their further 
enforcement, the evil might be endured ; but they have 
caused the people of the North to be seriously divided in 
opinions on the subject of the war, and have thus impaired 
the power of the loyal States to contend with the rebellion 
lney have weakened, if not paralyzed, the public faith in 
the integrity of the Union. They have shown that it is 
possible, even with a million of men in the field in defence 
of the Constitution, that that great compact may, never- 
theless, be over-ridden or disregarded, by its own chosen 
guardians. They have shown that the people themselves 






44 

can alone be intrusted to originate and enforce public mea- 
sures. They have shown the wisdom and far-seeing saga- 
city of the framers of the Government, who habitually 
distrusted, and sought by every means to limit, the exer- 
cise of power by the Federal Government. 

With these evidences of the errors of the administration, 
and of popular disapproval, is the President endowed with 
sufficient firmness and patriotism to retrace his steps, and 
put us back to where he found us, a free people, ever ready 
to vindicate the laws of the Union, whether violated by 
friend or foe? Ours is a Government of laws, so consti- 
tuted, when properly administered, as to be incapable of 
overthrow. It rests upon the will of the people. Its 
foundations are as broad as its territory. Infidelity to such 
a system is rebellion against humanity itself. Its authors, 
aiders, and abettors are outlaws. The magnitude of the 
crime should make us careful, however, to distinguish and 
mark the parties who are really guilty — the rebel who 
plots and combines, and the rebel who executes. The 
Abolitionists, for more than twenty-five years, have been 
sowing the seeds of disloyalty- to the Government of the 
Union. They have polluted and demoralized the national 
faith. They have made rebellion the very law of our being. 
They have destroyed the oneness 'of our people, by array- 
ing section against section, morals against morals, religion 
against religion. Not satisfied with these results, they 
now seek the utter overthrow of the Constitution, and the 
consequent destruction of all the great interests of society. 
They constitute a miserable minority, with power only for 
mischief. In success or defeat, they stand in the way of 
all rational measures, and blight every honest hope of 
future peace and union. With these forces on the side of 
the North, and open rebellion in the South, the chances of 
a harmonious adjustment of political differences seem small 
indeed, There is, however, just one remedy left to the 
people of the North — and but one — and that is, to regard 
and treat Abolitionism as the first and greatest offender, 
and Secessionism as its natural ally. The destruction of 
the former will take away the energies and power of the 
latter. 



LB." 



